Empowering health care education through learning analytics: in-depth scoping review

Background: Digital education has expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic began. A substantial amount of recent data on how students learn has become available for learning analytics (LA). LA denotes the “measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs.” Objective: This scoping review aimed to examine the use of LA in health care professions education and propose a framework for the LA life cycle. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of 10 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ICTP, Scopus, and IEEE Explore. In total, 6 reviewers worked in pairs and performed title, abstract, and full-text screening. We resolved disagreements on study selection by consensus and discussion with other reviewers. We included papers if they met the following criteria: papers on health care professions education, papers on digital education, and papers that collected LA data from any type of digital education platform. Results: We retrieved 1238 papers, of which 65 met the inclusion criteria. From those papers, we extracted some typical characteristics of the LA process and proposed a framework for the LA life cycle, including digital education content creation, data collection, data analytics, and the purposes of LA. Assignment materials were the most popular type of digital education content (47/65, 72%), whereas the most commonly collected data types were the number of connections to the learning materials (53/65, 82%). Descriptive statistics was mostly used in data analytics in 89% (58/65) of studies. Finally, among the purposes for LA, understanding learners’ interactions with the digital education platform was cited most often in 86% (56/65) of papers and understanding the relationship between interactions and student performance was cited in 63% (41/65) of papers. Far less common were the purposes of optimizing learning: the provision of at-risk intervention, feedback, and adaptive learning was found in 11, 5, and 3 papers, respectively. Conclusions: We identified gaps for each of the 4 components of the LA life cycle, with the lack of an iterative approach while designing courses for health care professions being the most prevalent. We identified only 1 instance in which the authors used knowledge from a previous course to improve the next course. Only 2 studies reported that LA was used to detect at-risk students during the course’s run, compared with the overwhelming majority of other studies in which data analysis was performed only after the course was completed.Published versionThe authors would like to acknowledge the funding support from the World Health Organization collaborating centre for Digital Health and Health Education. JC’s post at Imperial College London is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Northwest London Applied Research Collaboration. Research of DG was in part supported by the Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre (DHCRC0056) and the Australian Research Council (DP210100060 and DP220101209)